In the Dec. 1 letters page, Cherie Evans of Nelson contributed to the discussion about the respect for human life banner and her perceptions of what Nelson Right to Life stood for. First, I would like to thank Ms. Evans for her contribution to the ongoing discussion. It is precisely this exchange of ideas that makes Nelson such a vibrant community. In her letter she “reminds” Rick Rodman that his organization is “based on … personal convictions /opinions/ideology,” and as such doesn’t meet the criteria that she thinks council has set for the hanging of banners on Baker St.
Fair enough. Everyone has a right to their opinion on such issues and the arguments pro and con have been well canvassed thanks to our paper and social media venues.
So I would like to take the pro-life/anti-abortion, pro-choice/pro-abortion, discussion in a more personal direction. I am pro-life/anti-abortion. I am because everything I have read, understand and experienced about human rights demands that we respect and value every human being—without exceptions. Whether it is the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Universal Declaration on Human Rights or countless other human rights treaties, covenants and traditions, the bottom line is every human being has an inherent right to life.
Further, the only standard that should be applied to who is a human being, is a scientific/biological one. Religious, philosophical or even legal pronouncements, about when a “soul” enters a human, or what humans should be bestowed personhood, should not trump scientific facts.
Historically, when people try to separate the reality of a flesh and blood human from the legal concept of “personhood” legal protection and respect, terrible atrocities have resulted.
Modern biology declares with no reluctance or qualification that human life begins at conception. That’s good enough for me.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe someone can explain my error of thinking. If so, I would appreciate being corrected.
Jim Demers
Nelson